ROS generation by reduced graphene oxide - dskpdf

14 downloads 43 Views 321KB Size Report
E-mail: [email protected] bCentre for Health Care Science and Technology, Indian Institute of Engineering. Science and Technology, Shibpur, Botanic Garden, ...


Cite this: RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 80192

Received 16th July 2015 Accepted 10th September 2015

ROS generation by reduced graphene oxide (rGO) induced by visible light showing antibacterial activity: comparison with graphene oxide (GO)† Taposhree Dutta,a Rudra Sarkar,a Bholanath Pakhira,a Subrata Ghosh,a Ripon Sarkar,b Ananya Baruib and Sabyasachi Sarkar*a

DOI: 10.1039/c5ra14061g

Reduced graphene oxide (rGO) generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) under visible light in air via a singlet oxygen–superoxide anion radical pathway which readily kills Enterobacter sp. The rGO+ intermediate reacts with a hydroxyl ion to produce graphene oxide (GO) as a coating on the surface of rGO resulting in enhanced fluorescence and a slow down in photo-induced ROS formation. GO is not toxic but on ageing it gets a surface coating of rGO and shows toxicity.

The synthesis of graphene oxide from graphite is dominated by the classic method introduced by Hummers et al.1 This GO is soluble in water as it contains several functional groups like carboxylic and hydroxyl groups.2 This solubility feature attracted several studies to explore its utility in diverse elds. GO is used in catalytic oxidation,3–5 biotechnology6–9 and as a surfactant.10 However, a straightforward readily available conversion of GO to graphene has not been observed as it is difficult to get rid of all those attached hydrophilic oxo groups in GO. Graphene oxide under reduction converts into a reduced GO form which improves the electrical conductivity.11,12 The reactivity of GO under varied chemical environments has been investigated. One important aspect of such a reaction is the reduction of GO. It was observed that GO is changed to reduced graphene oxide (rGO) under exposure to reducing chemicals or bio-molecules including bacteria or even under bright light.13 This reduction of GO to rGO diminished its dispersibility in water and uorescence properties as well.14 The physicochemical changes of GO on reduction to rGO led to the development of newer optoelectronic properties which are being used in physical and biochemical applications.13 It is now known that graphene and

GO are generally non-toxic to humans.15 However, rGO, the intermediate species, perhaps, with no xed stoichiometry with respect to C : O (representing the attached oxo functional groups) in between GO and graphene, has not been checked for its benign role towards human health. Therefore, we undertook the work and herein show that rGO generates ROS from aerial oxygen even under visible light and such reaction though harmful to humans may be used to combat hospital pathogens. The GO for this work was prepared by the well-known Hummers method1 and was characterized. This GO was reduced by using four conventional reducing agents like hydrazine hydrate, sodium borohydride, hypophosphorous acid and sodium dithionite to get rGOs of different shades (see S1†). All of these rGOs are now subjected to sunlight (or indoor tungsten lamp 60 W light irradiation) using a water lter and glass tube to cut off thermal and UV irradiation. In a typical experiment rGO, (hydrazine hydrate reduced) (0.5 mg mL 1) was just dispersed mechanically in water containing 0.6 mmol nitro blue tetrazolium chloride (NBT). The pale yellow solution of the mixture slowly changed to blue under light exposure within 30 minutes (Fig. 1). The change in yellow to blue colour of the NBT solution is characteristic to the formation of the diformazan dye.16 On extending the time of light exposure, the intensity of the blue colour steadily increased (a part of diformazan is precipitated


Nano Science and Synthetic Leaf Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, Botanic Garden, Howrah-711013, West Bengal, India. E-mail: [email protected]


Centre for Health Care Science and Technology, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, Botanic Garden, Howrah-711013, West Bengal, India † Electronic supplementary 10.1039/c5ra14061g


80192 | RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 80192–80195





(a) Blue diformazan formation on adding rGO (5 mg) in sunlight into a 0.6 mmol NBT solution; (b) the increase in diformazan formation with the increase in the light exposure time. Fig. 1

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015


out when formed in excess) to a point and on further irradiation ceased to develop further. Similar reactions in the presence of either sodium azide or dimethylsulfoxide of fresh rGO with NBT does not produce any blue diformazan. As the azide ion and DMSO are well known quenchers of singlet oxygen (1O2) and hydroxyl radical respectively17 it is apparent that the light induced reaction of rGO with oxygen proceeded via the formation of such species. Thus the reaction proves that light induced excited rGO* transfers its energy to triplet oxygen (3O2) to form singlet oxygen (1O2) at the initial stage and then other reactive oxygen species including hydroxyl radicals are nally formed. The next step reaction could be the excited rGO* reducing 1O2 to a superoxide ion, O2c which is known to react with NBT involving the abstraction of protons from water (Scheme 1). Therefore diformazan formation increases the pH of the reaction medium with progress in time (Fig. 2a) and this generated OH can react with rGO+ to produce GO (Scheme 1). The alternate direct hydroxylations by the hydroxyl radicals of rGO to produce GO is possible. The formation of hydroxyl radicals is anticipated as observed by the quenching ability of DMSO in this reaction.17 Whether rGO is catalytic or not has now been tested by reusing the used rGO with fresh NBT solution in several subsequent cycles. We observe that the production of diformazan decreases gradually in subsequent cycles (Fig. 2b). This shows that aer every cycle the ability of rGO to generate superoxide radicals reduces. Interestingly, washing the used rGO with 10% sodium hydroxide followed by its acid wash workup with 6 N HCl and drying under anaerobic conditions in the dark showed a weight loss of around 30% but the residual alkali–acid treated rGO regains its ability to produce superoxide anions (diformazan production) from air under exposure to light. The NaOH leached part on neutralization with dilute HCl acid and aer evaporation has been checked. This residue on extraction with ethanol when subjected to electronic absorption displayed the spectrum of GO as shown in Fig. 2c. Interestingly rGO is not soluble in ethanol (Fig. 2c). Therefore such an apparent solubility difference between GO and rGO can readily be made to identify both the species.

Scheme 1 Reaction scheme for photo-induced superoxide generation by rGO, the self generation of other ROS including OH radicals from superoxide radical anions has not been shown.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015

RSC Advances

(a) The increase in pH of the NBT–rGO solution on exposure to sunlight l $ 300 nm with time intervals of 15 min. (b) The slowdown of diformazan formation (O2c generation by rGO on its reuse in several cycles (photo-exposure time per cycle was an hour)), (c) electronic spectrum of the formed GO in ethanol (i) where rGO is virtually insoluble (ii) (broken line). Fig. 2

Furthermore the alkali washes were found to be uorescent (not shown) and this part contains GO as shown in Fig. 2c. The leaching of GO in alkaline medium showing enhanced uorescence has been reported.18 These results led to the conclusion that the excited rGO donates an electron to singlet oxygen to create a superoxide ion. The NBT–superoxide–water reaction generates diformazan dye liberating HO ions. This hydroxyl ion reacts with rGO+ to produce GO which may coat the surface of the insoluble bulk rGO to passivate it against subsequent reactions occurring. The superoxide anions generate other reactive oxygen species (ROS) like hydroxyl radicals that may directly react with rGO to produce GO. This establishes that the activity of rGO to produce superoxide is hindered by the deposition of GO on its surface produced by light induced ROS. The general belief that GO generates superoxide radicals from aerial oxygen and thus is toxic because of the production of ROS is wrong as freshly prepared GO has been checked and it has been found that it does not have the capability to generate superoxide radicals in air under light exposure (see S2†). These experiments when carried out in phosphate buffer saline (PBS) (0.01 M) in the pH range between 6.8 and 7.4 under indoor tungsten light (60 W) showed a similar result indicating that rGO is capable of producing ROS to damage cells under physiological pH. The starting rGO and light exposed rGO at pH 6.8 have been subjected to uorescence microscopy to show that rGO does not show any observable uorescence but aer tungsten light irradiation uorescence at all three visible wavelengths was observed (Fig. 3) which is characteristic to GO. This ability of rGO to generate ROS under indoor light in air made us research its antibacterial property. This is more important to combat strains like New Delhi metallo-betalactamase-1 (NDM-1) producing Enterobacteriaceae.19 Enterobacter sp. was chosen to nd the effect of rGO under light and

RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 80192–80195 | 80193

RSC Advances


This clearly suggests that microbial contamination can be readily avoided by using rGO to combat the growth of hospital pathogens. The gradual loss of the activity of rGO may be replenished by the reduction of the formed GO coating using hydrazine vapour or by washing off the GO coating with an alkali.


Fig. 3 (i) Fluorescence of fresh rGO, (ii) fluorescence of rGO after light exposure in air for two hours in PBS buffer, pH 6.8. The excitation wavelengths are (a) 385, (b) 488, (c) 561 nm.

air. 20 mL of Enterobacter sp. suspension was inoculated in two sets of nutrient broth (Hi-Media Laboratories, India) separately. To one of these sets 0.5 mg rGO was added in the culture media inoculated with Enterobacter sp. and another set of Enterobacter sp. culture was used as a control. Both of the sets were allowed to stand under 60 W glowing tungsten bulb light for 2 hours at 37  C. Then these bacterial cultures were incubated for 24 hours at 37  C. Aer 24 hours, 10 mL of cell suspension from both the rGO-treated and control were taken and smeared onto two clean glass slides separately. The smears were observed under a Nikon inverted microscope (Fig. 4). A similar operation when carried out under argon (in the presence of the necessary amount of CO2 in all cases) treated incubation of the bacterial culture showed a distinct difference in the growth rate. The reduced growth of the bacterial cells in the presence of rGO when compared with the control clearly established the inuence of rGO in generating superoxide. The traces of air present under argon medium resulted in residual proliferation of the cells.

Fig. 4 Activity of rGO on the growth of Enterobacter sp. treated under visible light: (a) without rGO, (b) with rGO, (a and b) in air, (c) without rGO and (d) with rGO, (c and d) in argon.

80194 | RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 80192–80195

In summary this work demonstrates that handling of rGO under ambient conditions in air and under visible light should be carried out with caution as it readily generates harmful ROS. To combat hospital pathogens, light and air should be used carefully and it should be stored in the dark when it is not needed. This work reveals a caveat that one should use GO with the utmost care as it gets slowly reduced even in the open environment on ageing with the formation of a surface coating of non-stoichiometric rGO. Such toxicity is related to ROS generation and this is due to the rGO contamination and not GO.

Acknowledgements RS thank Dr D. S. Kothari Post-doctoral fellowship, BP acknowledges the support of CSIR, New Delhi for a SRF and SS thanks SERB, DST India for a Ramanna Fellowship (SR/S1/RFIC01/2011).

Notes and references 1 W. S. Hummers and R. E. Offeman, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1958, 80, 1339. 2 H. He, J. Klinowski, M. Forster and A. Lerf, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1998, 287, 53–56. 3 D. R. Dreyer, H.-P. Jia and C. W. Bielawski, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2010, 49, 6813–6816. 4 T.-F. Yeh, J.-M. Syu, C. Cheng, T.-H. Chang and H. Teng, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2010, 20, 2255–2262. 5 J. Pyun, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2011, 50, 46–48. 6 V. C. Sanchez, A. Jachak, R. H. Hurt and A. B. Kane, Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2012, 25, 15–34. 7 Y. Wang, Z. Li, J. Wang, J. Li and Y. Lin, Trends Biotechnol., 2011, 29, 205–212. 8 Y. Guo, L. Deng, J. Li, S. Guo, E. Wang and S. Dong, ACS Nano, 2011, 5, 1282–1290. 9 Y. Song, Y. Chen, L. Feng, J. Ren and X. Qu, Chem. Commun., 2011, 47, 4436–4438. 10 J. Kim, L. J. Cote, F. Kim, W. Yuan, K. R. Shull and J. Huang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 8180–8186. 11 S. Gilje, S. Han, M. Wang, K. L. Wang and R. B. Kaner, Nano Lett., 2007, 7, 3394–3398. 12 D. R. Dreyer, S. Park, C. W. Bielawski and R. S. Ruoff, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2010, 39, 228–240. 13 K. P. Loh, Q. Bao, G. Eda and M. Chhowalla, Nat. Chem., 2010, 2, 1015–1024. 14 G. Eda, Y.-Y. Lin, C. Mattevi, H. Yamaguchi, H.-A. Chen, I. S. Chen, C.-W. Chen and M. Chhowalla, J. Adv. Mater., 2010, 22, 505–509.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015


15 M. Saxena and S. Sarkar, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 30162–30167. 16 M. A. Pathak and P. C. Joshi, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1984, 798, 115–126. 17 R. Franco, M. I. Panayiotidis and J. A. Cidlowski, J. Biol. Chem., 2007, 282, 30452–30465.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015

RSC Advances

18 D. Pan, J. Zhang, Z. Li and M. Wu, J. Adv. Mater., 2010, 22, 734–738. 19 D. Raghunath, Indian J. Med. Microbiol., 2010, 28, 189.

RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 80192–80195 | 80195